Rainer’s analysis of why churches fall deserves careful consideration from all long established churches:
The names of the churches stare back at me.
There are 876 churches in all. Most of them have their names written in my books. They are Effective Evangelistic Churches, High Expectation Churches, Standout Churches, and Breakout Churches. Three books were written on these churches. My teams did hundreds of hours of research.
Though quantification of church health is difficult, we attempted to look at health from several perspectives. Evangelistic health. Discipleship health. Doctrinal health. Fellowship health. Worship health.
We know that our measurements are fallible, but we still think we identified some of the greatest churches in America.
But now some of the names stare back at me. Not all of the names. Just some of the names.
From Great to Mediocrity
The names I am seeing right now are churches that are no longer great. They have fallen from the lists. They no longer meet the criteria.
We found some of the fallen churches from statistical follow-up. We found others in consultations, and still others from familiarity with the churches. Some people told us that other great churches had fallen on tough times. And some people even questioned if our studies had validity since those churches had fallen from greatness.
Again, we make no claim of infallibility in our research. But we do believe that our research is sound. The studies that we did, however, were mostly “rear-view mirror” studies. We looked at churches from the past several years to the present. But past accomplishments are no guarantee for future health. Churches can reverse their positive trends.
It’s those churches whose names are staring at me.
Hubris, Denial, and Nostalgia
Of course, the single word question that disturbs me is “Why?” . . .
Read the rest here.
This is sobering, Chris.
Among the solutions (repentance, reality check, identifying community, and obedience) do you see other biblical models to follow so churches avoid falling?
Paul, it’s such a good question on your part. I think of the negative warnings like 1 Corinthians 10:1-14 . . . I suppose on the positive side, perhaps, Josiah’s reform?
Anything come to mind for you?
Thanks, Chris. Good counsel indeed. Indeed Josiah’s reform to destroy all that sets itself up in the place of God must always be on the radar. We all are prone to stand in God’s shoes and take his place as the central character in His story. I can’t help but recall Os Guinness and John Seel’s No God but God: Breaking with the Idols of Our Age as relevant here. And certainly we must learn from those who went before us and have blazed the trail of failure as a warning (1 Cor 10).
As for what comes to mind here, I’m unconvinced that growing from a moderate, local expression of church as in NT times to a city-wide extension of “campuses” with satellite extensions and multi-skilled staff members, bookstores, coffee houses, restaurants, etc. is a viable way to do church.
Just thinking…
As much as I understand what he’s trying to say (and agree with it as well) and that he’s using the word “church” as it used by contemporary society, I believe one should still remember that, from a biblical perspective, there are no churches– great or otherwise- but rather the church. The church is not an institution nor a building, but the catholic (small “c”) body of believers. As such, individuals, even congregations, may fall astray, but the church itself cannot fall since the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Maybe it’s just me, but I believe he could have made the same point without effecting this error.